Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Another Year-End List
Dahlia Lithwick's picks for the year's most outrageous assaults on civil liberties.
thoreau|12.31.06 @ 2:06PM|#
According to a recent motion, during Padilla's years of
almost complete isolation, he was treated by the U.S. government to
sensory and sleep deprivation, extreme cold, stress positions,
threats of execution, and drugging with truth serum. Experts say he
is too mentally damaged to stand trial. The Bush administration
supported his motion for a mental competency assessment, in hopes
that will help prevent his torture claims from ever coming to
trial, or, as Yale Law School's inimitable Jack Balkin put it: "You
can't believe Padilla when he says we tortured him because he's
crazy from all the things we did to him."
I hadn't heard this before. Padilla is so mentally damaged that
he's incompetent to stand trial? Somebody needs to spend a long
time in prison over this.
|12.31.06 @ 2:09PM|#
Dahlia Lithwick's picks for the year's most outrageous
assaults on civil liberties Liberal Talking
Points.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|12.31.06 @ 2:16PM|#
Are you fucking kidding me? THESE are the most outrageous assaults on civil liberties?
|12.31.06 @ 2:21PM|#
Dalhia entitled to her point of view, but the fact that she missed the numorous failed SWAT team raid abuse, the continuation of the drug war, the Duke Rape case, the murder of the wedding party in New York City pretty much ends what little credibility she had with me. Basically, Lithwick is more concerned about scumbags like Padila than she is about average citizens caught up in web of government. Basically, if your case doesn't allow her to score polemical points about Bush, you are shit out of luck in Lithwick's world.
|12.31.06 @ 2:34PM|#
What? Nothing about registering for allergy and cold medications? Nothing about the PATRIOT act as it pertains to ordinary citizens? I just opened a bank account for my business and you would not believe the kind of questions you are forced to answer, several times I asked myself, is this worth it?
|12.31.06 @ 2:38PM|#
Agreed, bad list. I tried E-Mailing Dana but the E-Mail came
back to me. Coward.
Is there some kind of cognitive dissonance that makes people not
think about the drug war?
|12.31.06 @ 2:46PM|#
S.A.M. and T.P.G.: Indeed. How dare politicians criticize judges! Isn't it awful that journalists aren't the final arbiters of what the government should keep secret! Isn't it terrible how Padilla was treated (because we can always rely on captured jihadis telling the truth about their treatment)!
|12.31.06 @ 2:49PM|#
List should be titled "The 10 most outrageous civil liberties
violations of 2006 committed by the executive branch of the federal
government"
Too focused on Bush, while almost completely letting congress and
the judicial branch off the hook. As well as all the states and
local governments.
anonymous|12.31.06 @ 2:58PM|#
Summary: I hate Bush. And lists like this will numb people to legitimate lists of outrages (by Bush and others), but I really hate Bush.
ed|12.31.06 @ 3:08PM|#
1) Somebody publishes a list
2) People complain about what's on the list
3) People complain about what's not on the list
4) Repeat
|12.31.06 @ 3:10PM|#
At least she didn't include the failure to provide universal healthcare as a civil liberties abuse.
|12.31.06 @ 4:03PM|#
You people actually think the Duke case was one of the worst liberties violations of the year? Just another case of prosecutorial overreach, but this one got media attention because of the whole white lacrosse players / black stripper angle, and anyone who reads H&R should realise that.
Jesse Walker|12.31.06 @ 4:07PM|#
I think Dead Elvis has the most cogent critique so far:
List should be titled 'The 10 most outrageous civil liberties
violations of 2006 committed by the executive branch of the federal
government.'
That said, an even better headline would be "The 10 worst civil
liberties violations related to the war on terror." The feds play a
substantial role in the drug war, after all.
On the other hand, when music critics post their top ten lists for
the year, part of the fun is watching as the rock fan picks his
favorite rock records, the jazzbo focuses on jazz, the zydeco
obsessive zeroes in on his favorite genre, etc. So let Lithwick
stick to her bailiwick. You're all invited to post rival lists of
your own, focusing on drugs, privacy, property rights,
prosecutorial abuse, SWAT teams, or whichever realm of the
government bugs you the most.
|12.31.06 @ 4:24PM|#
Of course Ms. Lithwick is most concerned with what our Executive
branch is doing to non-U.S. citizens vaguely suspected of collusion
with terrorists. She's just another in a long line of Frostback
journos taking jobs from Real Americans. :) At least Robin McNeil
and Peter Jennings eventually took their citizenship oaths. One
thinks that if Dahlia ever applied she might be subject to a little
rendition, herself.
No, there's nothing wrong with furriners commenting on our
Constitution, but it would be polite to lay off the use of "we" and
"our."
Kevin
|12.31.06 @ 4:40PM|#
part of the fun is watching as the rock fan picks his
favorite rock records, the jazzbo focuses on jazz, the zydeco
obsessive zeroes in on his favorite genre, etc.
From that angle, I'll say that the list is flawed because Bush was
at best a derivitive, generic blip in 90s rock. And no Pink Floyd!
It's an outrage!
|12.31.06 @ 4:41PM|#
"According to a recent motion, during Padilla's years of almost
complete isolation, he was treated by the U.S. government to
sensory and sleep deprivation, extreme cold, stress positions,
threats of execution, and drugging with truth serum."
Hmmm . . . one of these things is not like the others. When does
truth serum deserve to be bracketed along with torture? If the
results of truth-serum questioning were to be used against Padilla
in a criminal prosecution, that would violate the 5th Amendment,
but if the truth serum was just used to get info about terrorists
still on the use, what's illegal/tortuous about that?
|12.31.06 @ 5:32PM|#
Is there some kind of cognitive dissonance that makes people
not think about the drug war?
Obviously I suffer from a form of that. I thought in the thread
where we fought that you were being sarcastic with your reference
to the drug war, but now see I was wrong. I totally agree with you
that some people (liberals, for example, as exemplified by
Lithwick) don't see at all how the drug war erodes our civil
liberties.
As libertarians, we are fighting the most uphill of battles against
the War on Drugs, although as posted earlier on Hit & Run,
strangely enough the conservatives may become our allies on that
front. Time will tell.
Guy Montag|12.31.06 @ 6:14PM|#
Amazingly, the continued existance of Professor Ann Althouse did not make the list.
|12.31.06 @ 6:16PM|#
While I agree with many of Lithwick's assessments, she should
have had her entire top ten list as #6, George W. Bush's Chicanery
or War on Terror Overreaching. The list does appear to
have a liberal slant, but based mostly on what she didn't include.
Unfortunately, saying that this lady is a liberal gasbag doesn't
make what she's saying wrong.
Her liberal slant is frustrating though. Surely SWAT teams busting
down an old lady's door and killing her is a pretty gross civil
liberties problem, especially since it is a part of an alarming
trend.
|12.31.06 @ 6:26PM|#
When does truth serum deserve to be bracketed along with
torture?
I'd guess that it boils down to the fun of being involuntarily
jabbed with a needle and injected with a barbituate (with up to 36
hours of side effects including nausea, headaches, and delirium)
before each questioning session.
Furthermore, since an effective "truth serum" is mostly a
spy-thriller fantasy, all of this is done for absolutely no good
goddamned reason.
I reckon that qualifies.
grylliade|12.31.06 @ 7:36PM|#
Okay, so she missed some civil liberties abuses. Yeah, it
happens; some people have different priorities. But is anyone here
willing to argue that a single thing on that list is
really not worrying?
It isn't so much that I'm worried about Bush. I think he's capable
of abusing the powers he's claiming, but we'll still be mostly
free. What I'm worried about is the precedent it sets. Maybe Bush
isn't as bad as some tin-pot Central Asian dictator. Is that really
all we expect from our president?
Bush needs to be held to answer for his crimes, because otherwise
future administrations will start with the Bush administration's
abuses of power as a baseline of what's allowed. And
though I think Bush is mostly harmless, I can't speak for every
president we'll have from here on out.
|12.31.06 @ 8:12PM|#
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PAY ATTENTION TO ME. HELLO, LOOK AT ME, I'M OH SO BAD. HEY, HEY! LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME. JERKS.
thoreau|12.31.06 @ 10:37PM|#
Exactly, grylliade.
Also, I think the point of the list was not so much "The Top 10 Bad
Things the Government Did in 2006" but rather "The Top 10 Bad
Things That Set Bad Precedents in 2006." Which is a perfectly
reasonable list to compile.
|1.1.07 @ 1:26AM|#
Okay, so she missed some civil liberties abuses. Yeah, it
happens; some people have different priorities. But is anyone here
willing to argue that a single thing on that list is really not
worrying?
What's worrying is that not even people who make civil liberties
their top priority can even mention that drug war in an article on
the top abuses.
We imprison a higher percentage of our population then any other
country in the world and many (most?) of those is for stuff that
shouldn't be a crime. Its about freakin time somebody noticed.
|1.1.07 @ 3:55AM|#
But is anyone here willing to argue that a single thing on
that list is really not worrying?
OK, I'll bite, and go farther: nothing on the list is very
worrying at all. Everything is so minor or such a special case that
it all adds up to not much.
10. Attempt to Get Death Penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui: Good. If
we can't execute violent jihadists involved in terror plots, we're
not being serious enough.
9. Guantanamo Bay: Preferrable to alternatives, plus we are
actually being softies by not executing many of them as illegal
combatants under the Geneva Conventions, as is our legal
right.
8. Slagging the Media: Gosh, government secrecy in wartime, we've
never had that before! And if the courts say the ACLU doesn't have
the right to publish secret information illegally given them, I
suspect the Republic will survive that as well.
7. Slagging the Courts: Oh no, politicians criticizing judges! The
most overreaching branch of government might be slightly retrained
in some special cases!
6. The State-Secrets Doctrine: A new kind of war requires new kinds
of responses. A small price to pay considering the stakes involved.
I have yet to see any actual misuse of these powers. Yawn.
5. Government Snooping: See #6. Again, yawn. And to say PETA is a
"nonterrorist group" is a bit of a dodge: any group that gives
money to the ELF, the ALF, and various individuals involved in
firebombings and attempted murder is certainly skirting close to
that label.
4. Extraordinary Rendition: Another example of how this war has to
be fought. She mentions two cases. Wow . . . two. Well, I'm sorry
that two innocents got detained and released, but that hardly
counts as a civil liberties crisis.
3. Abuse of Jose Padilla: According to a wannabe jihadi. Yeah, they
can always be trusted to tell the truth.
2. The Military Commissions Act of 2006: Again, a purely
theoretical threat to civil liberties so far.
1. Hubris: Oh my gosh! People in power disagree with Dahlia on
these matters and won't admit they're wrong and she's right!
Obviously fascism is just around the corner.
Based on her feeble list of concerns, I'd say our civil liberties
are actually doing quite well, considering.
Frog|1.1.07 @ 9:34AM|#
All they did was turn a knob on a stove. Do you have a problem
with turning knobs? Lots of knobs are turned every day and nobody
died.
Besides, if anything, the water was a bit too cold before. Now it's
actually quite comfy.
|1.1.07 @ 10:32AM|#
PapayaSF, you would save yourself plenty of time by just stating you don't believe civil liberties are very important.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.1.07 @ 12:33PM|#
We imprison a higher percentage of our population then any other
country in the world and many (most?) of those is for stuff that
shouldn't be a crime.
60% of all imprisoned.
|1.1.07 @ 1:28PM|#
I have to say, this thread is making me a lot more optimistic
about that libertarian Democrats thing.
Look through these comments, libertarians. You want to "fusion"
with PapayaSF?
|1.1.07 @ 1:36PM|#
"I totally agree with you that some people (liberals, for
example, as exemplified by Lithwick) don't see at all how the drug
war erodes our civil liberties."
The Drug War as liberal project. Somebody tell Reagan, Hatch,
Nixon, and Rockefellar.
thoreau|1.1.07 @ 2:21PM|#
joe, I don't think anybody is saying the drug war is an
inherently liberal/left project, just that there's plenty of
blindness about the drug war even among people who can otherwise be
characterized as civil libertarians.
And, regarding "fusionism" with people like PapayaSF, well, there
are probably quite a few libertarians (or self-described
libertarians, whatever) who think libertarianism is solely about
taxes and guns.
|1.1.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Tim, I'm a big believer in the civil liberty of not being
murdered by foreign terrorists who want to destroy my country. As
for the civil liberties of those foreign terrorists, not so much.
It's a war they started, and they're not following any of the rules
of war, so according to the Geneva Conventions we don't have to
follow the rules of war when we catch them. I'm not advocating the
rack or anything, but the fact that they are being held at Gitmo
doesn't trouble me at all.
Thoreau, I certainly believe libertarianism is more than taxes and
guns, but I also believe that defending the country and its
citizens from foreigners making war is a basic task of
government.
And I'd bet my beliefs are closer to that of the average American
libertarian than Joe's pro-socialist "libertarianism".
|1.1.07 @ 3:10PM|#
this pernicious myth continues. 60% of people imprisoned are not
imprisoned SOLELY for drugs. i am against the drug war. i am also
against lying and misrepresenting in order to fight it. if you
actually LOOK at the stats, and i have been involved in doing this
for 20 years, it is a flat out lie
this has already been discussed in this blog, and i already
presented plenty of evidence.
also, to gnat...
i have been involved in dozens of rape investigations. the duke
case struck me INSTANTLY as most probably a bunch of complete
crap... and went downhill from there. i have never, in 20 years of
police work, seen a rape case that was anywhere NEAR as ridiculous
as this case. it is a major civil rights violation, and it is
horrendously awful. what is especially sucky is all the so called
defenders of civil liberties (feminist blogs like feministing come
to mind) from the get go INSTANTLY called for these guys heads and
assumed they were guilty. anybody with even the remotest bit of
common sense, let alone law enforcement background, can realize
that this case is an awful awful case.
|1.1.07 @ 4:31PM|#
How does one know when the critical point in a Republic's loss
of its basic liberties like freedom of speech has been passed? A
Dec. 22 notice from the Federal Election Commission looks very much
like that point for America.
The notice concerned a complaint the FEC received from one Sydnor
Thompson that Kirk Shelmerdine had improperly committed an
independent expenditure on behalf of the Bush-Cheney re-election
campaign during the 2004 race.
You've probably never heard of Shelmerdine unless you happen to be
a fan of NASCAR racing. Then you would know that he is a former
top-ranked crew chief who once worked with the immortal Dale
Earnhardt but who went on his own a few years ago.
By Shelmerdine's own description to the FEC, his team is
under-funded and without much hope of qualifying for a NASCAR race.
Shelmerdine and his car are "a field filler," with "no realistic
chance of winning an event."
When he committed the independent expenditure, Shelmerdine had none
of the big-time sponsors normally associated with front-line NASCAR
drivers like Tony Stewart and Jeff Gordon. In fact, Shelmerdine had
no significant sponsors at all during the four races in which he
raced during 2004 while committing that independent
expenditure.
Here's how Shelmerdine described himself and his reasons for
putting the Bush-Cheney 04 bumper sticker on his race car:
"I put the decals that are the subject of this complaint on the car
solely because I thought that doing so would bring attention to the
car and publicity for me and the car.
"It was not my intention, in any manner, to be a supporter of
President Bush or to influence the Presidential election.
"I am not a registered voter. I have never been actively involved
in politics.
I have not publicly endorsed or aided any politician. I have never
contributed any money or considerations of any kind to any
politician, Political Action Committee, etc.
The decals that were placed on the car would cost and have a value
of
$50.00 or less."
The truth is, Shelmerdine's independent expenditure might have been
seen by a handful of people outside the pits.
But don't worry, the FEC magnanimously declined to bring down the
full weight of the law on Shelmerdine for this dastardly act of
plastering a single bumper sticker on a race car that hardly anyone
saw.
No, the FEC graciously and mercifully settled on sending a mere
"admonishment" to Shelmerdine. After all, as soon as he knew about
the FEC action against him, Shelmerdine "out of an abundance of
caution" took the bumper sticker off his race car.
You can read the FEC documents in the case here.
If you still wonder why I believe this case is so important, think
about this: What is the difference between Kirk Shelmerdine's race
car as his equipment for making a living and the pickup truck
driven by the plumber or housing contractor?
The contractor with a Kerry-Edwards or Bush-Cheney bumper sticker
on his back bumper and driving down I-95 or just about any other
public road in America will be seen by far more people than
Shelmerdine's "field filler" race car at four NASCAR events.
It's the same "independent expenditure," but it has more impact
than the Shelmerdine sticker, so what's to keep Congress from next
directing the FEC to "admonish" every contractor, plumber,
electrician, etc. etc. in America to get those bumper stickers off
their pickups?
The Shelmerdine case is not merely "simply silly," as argued today
by The Washington Post editorial page. It is indicative of the
ongoing destruction of history's greatest bulwark for the right of
every individual to think, say, believe and associate as he or she
chooses, without having to get prior permission from bureaucrats or
politicians.
And thus one lone little voice among the formerly free American
citizenry is silenced. The grasping, fearful politicians and the
petty, controlling bureaucrats in Washington drive another nail in
the coffin containing the First Amendment.
Jefferson's point about the need for a revolution every 20 years or
so is becoming clearer with each passing day.
That needs to be on any top ten list. The fact that it would never
occur to someone like Lithwick to put this or something like it on
her list is why I have no use or respect for her writing.
|1.1.07 @ 4:38PM|#
joe, from a Conservative's viewpoint, Rockefeller was a
"liberal." He was a big spending, big taxing, edifice building,
Ripon Society-style "moderate." He was what today they'd call a
RINO - Republican In Name Only. The GOPs conservative wing hated
Rockefeller dating back to the fight between Taft and Eisenhower in
1952. Rocky's grip on the New York Republican party inspired the
formation of that state's Conservative Party, which managed to
defeat Nelson's replacement for Sebator Bobby Kennedy in
1970.
Rockefeller's enthusiasm for cranking up jail sentences for the
possession of small amounts of dope is evidence that there is no
more an ideological barrier to "moderate" or leftist statists using
government power to enforce their morality via the WoSD then there
is when they train their guns on smoking or fatty foods.
How many "progressive" or "moderate" officeholders, unless they
have opted not to run for re-election, have come out in favor of
legalization or a strong version of decriminalization? Even in the
'bluest" urban districts, that's still considered political
suicide.
Kevin
|1.1.07 @ 5:33PM|#
The Drug War as liberal project. Somebody tell Reagan,
Hatch, Nixon, and Rockefellar.
thoreau already gave the correct answer to this, but I just had to
say to you, joe, that I've never seen you so obviously misrepresent
something I'd said before.
|1.1.07 @ 6:10PM|#
PapayaSF, you conveniently ignore the question of whether the detainees at Guantanamo are in fact terrorists. To deny Geneva rights to all detainees summarily means that innocents will be deprived as well as "those foreign terrorists." So, do you believe innocents caught in the web of the War On Terror deserve Geneva protections? Or are their rights immaterial?
p-ter|1.1.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Tim, I'm a big believer in the civil liberty of not being
murdered by foreign terrorists who want to destroy my country. As
for the civil liberties of those foreign
terrorists, not so much.
Padilla is an american citizen.
|1.1.07 @ 6:23PM|#
jf,
Then you should write clearer. "Some people (liberals, for
example..."
If you didn't mean to imply tha liberals are behind the drug war,
then that was a poorly written sentence. Your phrasing made
"liberals" and "example" of those who see nothing wrong with the
drug war. If you meant to describe Lithwich as an example of a
liberal who saw nothing wrong with the drug war, you missed.
|1.1.07 @ 6:24PM|#
Yes, PapayaSF, you are such a libertarian that you are on the
other side from us "socialits." Quite right.
You're ok with everything Lithwick listed, ands we're not.
|1.1.07 @ 7:10PM|#
joe,
I'm really full of goodwill towards all, so I hope this comes out
right. I was responding to Chalupa's comment regarding Lithwick's
omission of the War on Drugs as an assault on our civil liberties.
When I saw your comment, what I read indicated to me that you
decided to deliberately misinterpret what I had said to make a case
that I believe that the War on Drugs is a liberal invention, when I
plainly meant that liberals (who should be allies with us in the
War on Drugs) seem to have a blind spot, just like Chalupa
said.
Regardless, joe, I hope you had a happy holiday season, and I look
forward to surprising you when I agree with you and irritating you
when I don't in 2007.
|1.1.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Joe, I'm not such a libertarian that I can get worked up over
Lithwick's laughably feeble list of supposedly "most outrageous
civil liberties violations." Even the oft-wacky Reason of today
could easily come up with a more substantive list: Cory Maye, the
post-Katrina confiscation of legal firearms, Kelo, and John's post
about the FEC above would all be good candidates. Lithwick may
think she's defending civil liberties, but if she got her way it
would only mean more dead Americans in the long run, which I
consider a major violation of civil liberties.
p-ter: True, but I don't think it changes my point by much. (By the
way, I find it interesting that Lithwick doesn't repeat Padilla's
claim that the government
gave him LSD or PCP. Perhaps she realizes that would make her
outrage seem even sillier.)
Tim: OK, good point. It's a difficult situation. No, I don't think
every person ever held at Gitmo is guilty, and I want the innocent
released as much as you do. The problem is very complex, because
the people making war against us violate every rule of war as a
matter of course, which makes it difficult to fight them
effectively without making mistakes. But given the stakes involved,
I strongly disagree with the view that every terrorist we capture
anywhere in the world deserves a full Perry Mason defense, and that
our failure to do so is a civil liberties outrage rather than a
grim miliary necessity.
|1.1.07 @ 7:54PM|#
The Drug War as liberal project. Somebody tell Reagan,
Hatch, Nixon, and Rockefellar[sic].
joe, while Reagan is the archetypical republican conservative and
Hatch is the supreme religious conservative icon neither Nixon nor
Rockefeller were considered conservatives in their day.
Nixon was an anti-communist liberal of the 40s and 50s (in those
days there was, in fact, such a thing as a liberal
republican). He completely supported an expansive welfare state at
home while opposing communist expansion abroad. It would have been
difficult to slip a dollar bill between his politics and those of
Hubert Humphrey's (especially since both supported extensive
surveillance of Americans to make sure they were not Commies or
queers or anything of the kind).
Nixon "became" a "conservative" in 1968 when it looked like that's
what he needed to do to get the GOP nomination.
As for Rockefeller, do not even speak his name in the presence of a
Goldwater Republican if you do not want your ears burned. He was
most certainly never any kind of conservative. Again, in
those days there were such things as a liberal
republicans* and Rockefeller was their leader.
*definition of a Rockefeller republican: Someone who thinks we need
universal national health coverage so that we do not have to worry
about catching a dread disease from The Help.
And joe, lest you wonder if I value your contributions to these
discussions, may the holidays be joyful for you, and may the coming
year be filled with happiness and success. I mean that for you and
all Hit and Runners.
|1.1.07 @ 8:08PM|#
Papaya SF,
I strongly disagree with the view that every terrorist we
capture anywhere in the world deserves a full Perry Mason defense,
and that our failure to do so is a civil liberties outrage rather
than a grim miliary necessity.
Again, doesn't this suggest that everyone we capture is a
terrorist? Isn't the reason for habeas corpus precisely because the
government catches and deals with real bad guys just as efficiently
as it educates and cares for the poor and the sick?
|1.1.07 @ 8:08PM|#
this pernicious myth continues. 60% of people imprisoned are
not imprisoned SOLELY for drugs. i am against the drug war. i am
also against lying and misrepresenting in order to fight it. if you
actually LOOK at the stats, and i have been involved in doing this
for 20 years, it is a flat out lie
Depends. If we're talking about federal prisons, 60% is pretty
close. State prisons are about 20%.
Link
|1.1.07 @ 8:31PM|#
Again, doesn't this suggest that everyone we capture is a
terrorist?
Simply reasserting that every detainee is a terrorist is a common
response used to avoid the argument and ignore the problem. This
administration would rather close its eyes to a detainee's
innocence than give up its power to detain and "interrogate" anyone
it chooses.
|1.1.07 @ 8:42PM|#
According to that notorious right-wing rag, Time,
Mr. Nifong is in jeopardy of losing his law license, if the bar
association grievance procedures go hard on hum.
Kevin
thoreau|1.1.07 @ 8:52PM|#
Isn't the reason for habeas corpus precisely because the
government catches and deals with real bad guys just as efficiently
as it educates and cares for the poor and the sick?
I think that about sums it up.
|1.1.07 @ 11:09PM|#
OK, let me rephrase that: I strongly disagree with the view that
every suspected terrorist we capture anywhere in the world
deserves a full Perry Mason defense, and that our failure to do so
is a civil liberties outrage rather than a grim military
necessity.
My overall point: I hear lots of griping, nitpicking, and
hysterical fascism-is-descending claims from lots of people on the
left (and too many libertarians) about everything that's wrong with
how we are fighting this war. I'll agree that all is not hunky-dory
(no war ever is), but I note a distinct lack of suggestions for
practical, workable, realistic alternative approaches. And no,
treating this as purely a law-enforcement/diplomatic problem (i.e.
the Clinton approach) can no longer be considered practical or
realistic.
shan|1.2.07 @ 5:57AM|#
According to this president's administration, the president can deem any person who is picked up off the "battlefield" an enemy combatant. The battlefield is not oversees or in a conventional war zone but rather it could be anywhere including the good old US. The constitutional safeguards established to protect against unlawful violations of liberty is DEAD, your life and liberty is essentially left to up to any officer who thinks you could be an enemy combatant. What the hell is an enemy combatant i dont know, now why would any libertarian trust this much power vested in the hands of one man, maybe you trust George Bush but this absolute power will corrupt some future executive. Remember Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Guy Montag|1.2.07 @ 10:11AM|#
Note to Rep. Rangel: you are no longer a Liberal because of your
efforts to criminalize drug use.
Don't forget his slave labor for the military porject.
Relly want to see someone write that he is some sort of
"conservative" in a paper that ends with 'Times'.
|1.2.07 @ 10:41AM|#
I strongly disagree with the view that every suspected
terrorist we capture anywhere in the world deserves a full Perry
Mason defense, and that our failure to do so is a civil liberties
outrage rather than a grim military necessity...I note a distinct
lack of suggestions for practical, workable, realistic alternative
approaches.
It's important to note what this thinking has contributed to or
produced...
1. Distancing of even our allies from our methods.
2. Inability to leverage human rights concerns against our rivals
and enemies.
3. Well-documented creation of new anti-American scorn and
increases in anti-American sentiments and rhetoric throughout the
very regions we seek to influence with promises of democracy and
the rule of law.
4. Repeated Supreme Court smack downs.
5. Reduction in support - at home and abroad - for the war.
6. Well-documented mistaken imprisonment of people (including
children and journalists) under the initial guise of being
terrorists.
I think most of us are at least sympathetic with some of
impracticalities you point out with providing everyone a "Perry
Mason-style defense."
But leaving presidential decrees unchecked and reducing due process
to cursory reviews by the very people who imprisoned "suspected"
terrorists in the first place is shockingly weak and
disengenuous.
For all your indignation about "lack of suggestions for practical,
workable, realistic alternative approaches," where's your
indignation over the denial of basic civil rights. Or does your
notion of civil rights and common understanding of justice end with
people who have funny sounding names?
David Ross|1.2.07 @ 11:36AM|#
tomhynes and deadelvis:
According to Lithwick, you're part of the problem - for "slagging
the courts". Nifong knows best!
|1.2.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Isaac B,
I am well aware of the term "Rockefellar Republican," and of
Nixon's heresies against conservative economic policies.
But the issue here is law-and-order in general, and its culture-war
subset, the drug war. In this sphere, both men were rock-ribbed
conservatives, often playing up their drug warrior credentials to
endear themselves to conservatives who were turned off by their
economic and (in Rockefellar's case) foreign policy
orientations.
|1.2.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Nah, joe, you are all wet. The WoSD is a test case that shows
that statists come in all sorts of flavors - including "liberals"
(aka social democrats. progressives), "conservatives" and
"moderates." Pointing a finger at anyone you disagree with and
calling them "conservatives" is just bad political taxonomy. Plenty
of old New Dealers were in favor of "getting tough on crime" in the
60s and 70s. That may have made them "populists," but not
conservatives. Now, did, over time, some of those anti-crime
statists detach themselves from the Democrats and "liberalism" in
favor of the independent George Wallace campaign, Wallace's run in
the 1972 Democratic primaries, and eventually join the Nixon, and
later Reagan landslides? Sure. So some of Nixon's centrist
supporters and the latter-day "Reagan Democrats" eventually morphed
into conservative Republicans. But "liberal" Republicans like Rocky
didn't become conservatives because they trained state power on a
target the cons liked, for a change.
Rockefeller Republicans are still around, but they call themselves
"moderates," while their GOP rivals tag themn as libruls and
RINOs.
Kevin
|1.3.07 @ 10:03AM|#
PapayaSF:
You say: "I believe in civil liberties." Then you go on to say
that, in practice, you believe civil liberties are less
important than some vague threat by some foreign speaking crazies.
It's reality vs. speculation. I can only speak for myself, but I
think you are a giant pussy willing to shed civil liberties because
you are afraid. Scared. Fearful. Wimp. Pussy. Whatever word you
want to use to describe it is fine. Did you watch 9/11 on TV? Well
I watched it live. Grow a sack.
|1.4.07 @ 12:27AM|#
So you watched 9/11 live, and yet the threat is "vague"? Really? Because what I watched was not vague at all.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245